By Paolo Biondi and Gavin Jones
Tue Dec 13,12:55 PM ET
ROME (Reuters) - Italy's cash-strapped government has decided to hike taxes on one of the country's few vibrant industries, pornography, to help rein in the burgeoning budget deficit, government sources told Reuters Tuesday.
The "porno-tax," which imposes an additional levy of 25 percent on all income from pornography, is contained in a package of amendments to the 2006 budget to presented in the Chamber of Deputies Tuesday or Wednesday, the sources said.
Under the amendment, subscribers to hard core television channels must also pay additional value-added tax of 10 percent. Altogether, the tougher tax-treatment of porn should bring the government some 300 million euros next year.
A recent study by the Eurispes institute estimated revenues for pornography and related industries in 2004 at some 1.1 billion euros, up 100 million euros from the previous year and up 27 percent since 1991.
That is equal to about one-third of the revenues for a company like Italy's Mediaset, one of Europe's largest broadcasters, or about the same as the Giorgio Armani luxury goods group makes.
Italians spent an estimated 247 million euros on pay-TV porn in 2004, up 63 million euros from the previous year, as more satellite operators offered clients subscription packages.
The only so-called "drug" they should think about legalizing is weed. Nothing else. I know people who have been on the yayo train and it's not pretty. That shit should be illegal, period. Weed on the other hand is different. Also, one thing I totally disagree with is ciminalizing drug use. I'm not here to promote drug use but during college many years ago I learned a lot about the justice system. It's overwelmed with non-violent drug related convicts. That shit costs the government billions of dollars. If they just use fines to punish drug users they would make more money instead of losing money. If someone is going to use drugs they're going to use it. The war on drugs will never be won, we're losing and the government is too damn stupid to see that.
__________________
6MT Coupe -\'The rice is mightier than the corn, beotches!\'
The only so-called "drug" they should think about legalizing is weed. Nothing else. I know people who have been on the yayo train and it's not pretty. That shit should be illegal, period. Weed on the other hand is different. Also, one thing I totally disagree with is ciminalizing drug use. I'm not here to promote drug use but during college many years ago I learned a lot about the justice system. It's overwelmed with non-violent drug related convicts. That shit costs the government billions of dollars. If they just use fines to punish drug users they would make more money instead of losing money. If someone is going to use drugs they're going to use it. The war on drugs will never be won, we're losing and the government is too damn stupid to see that.
Word to the motherland. If marijuana was legalized, taxed and regulated we could focus our energies on the harder more destructive drugs. The enforcement and incarceration savings not to mention the revenues generated from taxing it would generate billions and billions of dollars.
The funny thing is that the war on drugs is having little to no effect on detering new users. We spend billions and billions of dollars enforcing marijuana laws but for what???
The only so-called "drug" they should think about legalizing is weed. Nothing else. I know people who have been on the yayo train and it's not pretty. That shit should be illegal, period. Weed on the other hand is different. Also, one thing I totally disagree with is ciminalizing drug use. I'm not here to promote drug use but during college many years ago I learned a lot about the justice system. It's overwelmed with non-violent drug related convicts. That shit costs the government billions of dollars. If they just use fines to punish drug users they would make more money instead of losing money. If someone is going to use drugs they're going to use it. The war on drugs will never be won, we're losing and the government is too damn stupid to see that.
Well put, iron. But I think they should be legal. What a grown man/woman chooses to put in their own body is their own problem. The big caveat is that they are responsible for the medical expenses. You can wreck your body, but you have to pay for it.
__________________ FLY NAVY
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
PCP/Acid (rumored to be invented for the CIA) and Meth are the only drugs that I wouldn't legalize since they are so volatile in their manufacturing.
My rational: we all agree that this war on drugs is not working and hasn't been ever: yes? We also agree that this war on drugs does not discourage anyone from experimenting with drugs: yes? we agree that prozac and lots of over-the-counter psychiatric drugs are perhaps worse than marijuna: yes?
Can we also agree that much of the violence on our streets and in our prisons are a side effect of illegal drug trafficking?
What would happen if Columbia, Mexico, Nicaragua, China, Afghanistan and others would be allowed to manufacture and export drugs legally to the U.S. (the #1 consumer of "illegal narcotics) and whatever country wants them, thereby:
- increasing their GNP
- eliminating the hazoroudous & dangerous drug traffickers
- reducing the amount of corrupt government officials that are in the pocket of drug traffickers
- increasing fair trade and globalization
- the ability of the US government to influence these other governments with a pro western type of democracy and capitalism.
I know what some of you more conservative people are thinking:
- the addiction rates would rise, particularly since some of these are more addictive
- more young people will try harder drugs.
- more drivers under the influence of an illegal hard drug.
These concerns are valid but yet to be proven. Might I add that these were the same arguments posed against the US government when prohibition was in place. Furthermore: what makes you think that there aren't people right now driving under the influence of some "illegal narcotic" or experimenting with harder drugs in junior high?
We are not winning the war on drugs. We are throwing BILLIONS of dollars down the tubes annually and still the US is the number 1 consumer of cocaine, heroin, and marijuna.
If you worry about overcrowded prisons, violence on our streets, violence in Tijuana or Bogota where drug traffickers will blatantly assasinate people who are anti-drug and regularly get away with it, then perhaps a different approach is needed altogether? The current way IS NOT WORKING, and it never will be.
Legalize the drugs, TAX the drugs heavily, use profits to educate and to rehabilitate. Get the violence on our ubran cities reduced, get these foreign countries to legitimately pump their economy with a product that they are already pumping, and then, I will still instruct my future kids in the same way my parents did to me - BY EXAMPLE. No drugs, no tobacco, no alcohol. Sure I drink, but I'm not alcoholic. I don't smoke cigarettes and I don't like highly addictive tobacco. Yes, I do smoke weed, but it is purely recreational. My stoner days are over, it comes with maturity and having a career.
You can't stop someone from polluting their bodies, but perhaps we can change the socio-economic way we deal with this.
^ Well said even though I don't totally agree on everything. Legalizing almost every drug at once is too extreme for your average American and has no chance of happening anytime soon. Legalizing just Marijuana would serve as a trial run and protocol for future initiatives if it succeeds.
I don't completely buy the driving under the influence argument for a few reasons.
1. It is already ocurring right now.
2. Just because Marijuana would be legal does not mean every Tom, Dick and Harry would run out and turn into a stoner driving under the influence.
3. With the revenues saved and generated by the legalization of marijuana, a portion can be allocated for more enforcement regarding serious offenses, ie driving under the influence.
The gateway theory has also been disproven through many studies and subsequent statistics.
Our current war on drugs, especially marijuana, is simply not working and a change needs to be made one way or another.
PCP/Acid (rumored to be invented for the CIA) and Meth are the only drugs that I wouldn't legalize since they are so volatile in their manufacturing.
My rational: we all agree that this war on drugs is not working and hasn't been ever: yes? We also agree that this war on drugs does not discourage anyone from experimenting with drugs: yes? we agree that prozac and lots of over-the-counter psychiatric drugs are perhaps worse than marijuna: yes? this your opinion gamma, i actually see the effectiveness in schools and around communities first hand. my younger sister is part of a drug-free program, and there are many other kids her age involved with these meetings. perhaps the "war on drugs" is not working for the older crowd, whom have been addicted for years, but there is basically no hope for them. i would know, my older sister is divorced from a drug addict that was an engineer. the idiot gave up his wife, son, nice house, nice cars, just so he could buy drugs. guess what? he started on "just marijuana" as well. knowledge about knowing what the drug is capable of, is stronger than "peer pressure" IMHO.
Can we also agree that much of the violence on our streets and in our prisons are a side effect of illegal drug trafficking?
What would happen if Columbia, Mexico, Nicaragua, China, Afghanistan and others would be allowed to manufacture and export drugs legally to the U.S. (the #1 consumer of "illegal narcotics) and whatever country wants them, thereby:
first of all, it's Colombia. columbia was a spacecraft that blew up as it was re-entering the earth. secondly, colombia's drugs are exported by drug-lords; for the government to begin trafficking drugs all throughout the lands is ludacris. yes, you are correct, we are the number 1 drug consuming country. but dont you think it has something to do with the money? we can AFFORD such drugs, therefore, we buy them. hypothetically speaking, if all the countries you mentioned DID begin to produce in mass such drugs, where do you expect all of them to go? geez man, there only a certain amount of drugs a human can take, and you really think 6 nations pumping out so many drugs is going to flourish them economically??? WRONG. the market is based on demand. if there are 6 nations (oh and there will be more) dishing out drugs left and right, the demand for drugs will drop considerably. so the "economical flourishing" you predict will not be as great as you might think.
- increasing their GNP
- eliminating the hazoroudous & dangerous drug traffickers
- reducing the amount of corrupt government officials that are in the pocket of drug traffickers
- increasing fair trade and globalization
- the ability of the US government to influence these other governments with a pro western type of democracy and capitalism.
I know what some of you more conservative people are thinking:
- the addiction rates would rise, particularly since some of these are more addictive
- more young people will try harder drugs.
- more drivers under the influence of an illegal hard drug.
These concerns are valid but yet to be proven.
funny considering the fact you just stated these hypothetical statements:
- increasing their GNP
- eliminating the hazoroudous & dangerous drug traffickers
- reducing the amount of corrupt government officials that are in the pocket of drug traffickers
- increasing fair trade and globalization
- the ability of the US government to influence these other governments with a pro western type of democracy and capitalism.
you cant prove any of these theories will actually become a reality either, so dont shoot down your own argument.
Might I add that these were the same arguments posed against the US government when prohibition was in place. Furthermore: what makes you think that there aren't people right now driving under the influence of some "illegal narcotic" or experimenting with harder drugs in junior high?
obviously there will be cases, that's inevitable. but to basically approve of drugs as a whole would be a great drop in moral for our nation. why dont we concentrate on legalizing prostitution instead?
We are not winning the war on drugs. We are throwing BILLIONS of dollars down the tubes annually and still the US is the number 1 consumer of cocaine, heroin, and marijuna.
your opinion, mines is that it's effective. i think its pretty funny that we're putting up money for the nation's youth to learn the effects of drugs. what if we didnt? you know the amount of garbage that people would talk?
If you worry about overcrowded prisons, violence on our streets, violence in Tijuana or Bogota where drug traffickers will blatantly assasinate people who are anti-drug and regularly get away with it, then perhaps a different approach is needed altogether? The current way IS NOT WORKING, and it never will be.
Legalize the drugs, TAX the drugs heavily, use profits to educate and to rehabilitate. Get the violence on our ubran cities reduced, get these foreign countries to legitimately pump their economy with a product that they are already pumping, and then, I will still instruct my future kids in the same way my parents did to me - BY EXAMPLE. No drugs, no tobacco, no alcohol. Sure I drink, but I'm not alcoholic. I don't smoke cigarettes and I don't like highly addictive tobacco. Yes, I do smoke weed, but it is purely recreational. My stoner days are over, it comes with maturity and having a career.
alcohol is not as addictive as marijuana or any other drug. the problem with marijuana is that it gets to a poin that it no longer feeds your needs, so you go look elsewhere. there is a reason why tobacco smokers cannot give up the cigarrette so easily. now think of that, but one-hundred times worse, and just about EVERYONE in the nation doing this. some country you have lined up for us.
You can't stop someone from polluting their bodies, but perhaps we can change the socio-economic way we deal with this.
you are right, we cant. so you want to ENCOURAGE people to use drugs, and expect that to help? because that's what legalizing drugs would boil down to. i could imagine my college and the amount of drop outs that would be a result of such an act.... you know what, maybe we should legalize it
PCP/Acid (rumored to be invented for the CIA) and Meth are the only drugs that I wouldn't legalize since they are so volatile in their manufacturing.
My rational: we all agree that this war on drugs is not working and hasn't been ever: yes? We also agree that this war on drugs does not discourage anyone from experimenting with drugs: yes? we agree that prozac and lots of over-the-counter psychiatric drugs are perhaps worse than marijuna: yes? this your opinion gamma, i actually see the effectiveness in schools and around communities first hand. my younger sister is part of a drug-free program, and there are many other kids her age involved with these meetings. perhaps the "war on drugs" is not working for the older crowd, whom have been addicted for years, but there is basically no hope for them. i would know, my older sister is divorced from a drug addict that was an engineer. the idiot gave up his wife, son, nice house, nice cars, just so he could buy drugs. guess what? he started on "just marijuana" as well. knowledge about knowing what the drug is capable of, is stronger than "peer pressure" IMHO.
I smoked weed and I didn't go into harder drugs. Hell nearly my whole Fraternity as a whole tried weed and didn't go into anything harder. I wish we could put a number to this, but I don't buy that weed is a gateway drug. Your relative made a huge error in judgement. Perhaps if it was legal, rehabilitation would be made readily available.?
Can we also agree that much of the violence on our streets and in our prisons are a side effect of illegal drug trafficking?
What would happen if Columbia, Mexico, Nicaragua, China, Afghanistan and others would be allowed to manufacture and export drugs legally to the U.S. (the #1 consumer of "illegal narcotics) and whatever country wants them, thereby:
first of all, it's Colombia. columbia was a spacecraft that blew up as it was re-entering the earth. (mere pettifoggery) secondly, colombia's drugs are exported by drug-lords; for the government to begin trafficking drugs all throughout the lands is ludacris. yes, you are correct, we are the number 1 drug consuming country. but dont you think it has something to do with the money? we can AFFORD such drugs, therefore, we buy them. hypothetically speaking, if all the countries you mentioned DID begin to produce in mass such drugs, where do you expect all of them to go? geez man, there only a certain amount of drugs a human can take, and you really think 6 nations pumping out so many drugs is going to flourish them economically??? WRONG. the market is based on demand. if there are 6 nations (oh and there will be more of course) dishing out drugs left and right, the demand for drugs will drop considerably. so the "economical flourishing" you predict will not be as great as you might think. Never said economic flourishing. I said increasing their GNP, like Colombian Coffee.
- increasing their GNP
- eliminating the hazoroudous & dangerous drug traffickers
- reducing the amount of corrupt government officials that are in the pocket of drug traffickers
- increasing fair trade and globalization
- the ability of the US government to influence these other governments with a pro western type of democracy and capitalism.
I know what some of you more conservative people are thinking:
- the addiction rates would rise, particularly since some of these are more addictive
- more young people will try harder drugs.
- more drivers under the influence of an illegal hard drug.
These concerns are valid but yet to be proven. You are correct, this statement should of been applied to all theories. But the point would be to test them.
funny considering the fact you just stated these hypothetical statements:
- increasing their GNP
- eliminating the hazoroudous & dangerous drug traffickers
- reducing the amount of corrupt government officials that are in the pocket of drug traffickers
- increasing fair trade and globalization
- the ability of the US government to influence these other governments with a pro western type of democracy and capitalism.
you cant prove any of these theories will actually become a reality either, so dont shoot down your own argument.
Might I add that these were the same arguments posed against the US government when prohibition was in place. Furthermore: what makes you think that there aren't people right now driving under the influence of some "illegal narcotic" or experimenting with harder drugs in junior high?
obviously there will be cases, that's inevitable. but to basically approve of drugs as a whole would be a great drop in moral for our nation. So currently, our moral is good because we are still the number 1 consumer of illegal drugs and we are winning this war on drugs? why dont we concentrate on legalizing prostitution instead? Why don't we?
We are not winning the war on drugs. We are throwing BILLIONS of dollars down the tubes annually and still the US is the number 1 consumer of cocaine, heroin, and marijuna.
your opinion, mines is that it's effective. i think its pretty funny that we're putting up money for the nation's youth to learn the effects of drugs. what if we didnt? you know the amount of garbage that people would talk? People talk regardless. You can't appease everyone. Nations talked against Bush and we are in Iraq. If the US wants to do something globally, it will do it. Domestically speaking, people still talk, it's a free society so of course, expect to hear a mouthful. Economics is the way to make sense of this debate.
If you worry about overcrowded prisons, violence on our streets, violence in Tijuana or Bogota where drug traffickers will blatantly assasinate people who are anti-drug and regularly get away with it, then perhaps a different approach is needed altogether? The current way IS NOT WORKING, and it never will be.
Legalize the drugs, TAX the drugs heavily, use profits to educate and to rehabilitate. Get the violence on our ubran cities reduced, get these foreign countries to legitimately pump their economy with a product that they are already pumping, and then, I will still instruct my future kids in the same way my parents did to me - BY EXAMPLE. No drugs, no tobacco, no alcohol. Sure I drink, but I'm not alcoholic. I don't smoke cigarettes and I don't like highly addictive tobacco. Yes, I do smoke weed, but it is purely recreational. My stoner days are over, it comes with maturity and having a career.
alcohol is not as addictive as marijuana or any other drug. You are correct, alcohol is physically addictive, whereas Marijuana is mentally addictive. People don't get the shakes when they stop using weed cold turkey. the problem with marijuana is that it gets to a poin that it no longer feeds your needs, so you go look elsewhere. there is a reason why tobacco smokers cannot give up the cigarrette so easily. now think of that, but one-hundred times worse, and just about EVERYONE in the nation doing this. You are assuming that because it would be legal, everyone will toss their prozac prescriptions out the window, no longer indulge in booze, get rid of their psychiatrists, forget about their own moral codes and just indulge in heroin, coke, or weed. Interesting theory. some country you have lined up for us.
You can't stop someone from polluting their bodies, but perhaps we can change the socio-economic way we deal with this.
you are right, we cant. so you want to ENCOURAGE people to use drugs, and expect that to help? because that's what legalizing drugs would boil down to. i could imagine my college and the amount of drop outs that would be a result of such an act.... you know what, maybe we should legalize it College students are fully aware where to get drugs and use them. That's the time we most experiment. Why would someone who is ambitious change to get their 4 year degree? Just because something is legal, does not mean it's condoned.
PCP/Acid (rumored to be invented for the CIA) and Meth are the only drugs that I wouldn't legalize since they are so volatile in their manufacturing.
My rational: we all agree that this war on drugs is not working and hasn't been ever: yes? We also agree that this war on drugs does not discourage anyone from experimenting with drugs: yes? we agree that prozac and lots of over-the-counter psychiatric drugs are perhaps worse than marijuna: yes? this your opinion gamma, i actually see the effectiveness in schools and around communities first hand. my younger sister is part of a drug-free program, and there are many other kids her age involved with these meetings. perhaps the "war on drugs" is not working for the older crowd, whom have been addicted for years, but there is basically no hope for them. i would know, my older sister is divorced from a drug addict that was an engineer. the idiot gave up his wife, son, nice house, nice cars, just so he could buy drugs. guess what? he started on "just marijuana" as well. knowledge about knowing what the drug is capable of, is stronger than "peer pressure" IMHO.
I smoked weed and I didn't go into harder drugs. Hell nearly my whole Fraternity as a whole tried weed and didn't go into anything harder. I wish we could put a number to this, but I don't buy that weed is a gateway drug. Your relative made a huge error in judgement. Perhaps if it was legal, rehabilitation would be made readily available.?
i believe it's a half-half effect. half of the people never try other drugs, while the other half decide they are ready for the next step. my brother in law was an idiot that went into rehab about 6 times, no lie. i think you are putting too much faith into rehab, it's not as effective as you might think.
Can we also agree that much of the violence on our streets and in our prisons are a side effect of illegal drug trafficking?
What would happen if Columbia, Mexico, Nicaragua, China, Afghanistan and others would be allowed to manufacture and export drugs legally to the U.S. (the #1 consumer of "illegal narcotics) and whatever country wants them, thereby:
first of all, it's Colombia. columbia was a spacecraft that blew up as it was re-entering the earth. (mere pettifoggery)haha secondly, colombia's drugs are exported by drug-lords; for the government to begin trafficking drugs all throughout the lands is ludacris. yes, you are correct, we are the number 1 drug consuming country. but dont you think it has something to do with the money? we can AFFORD such drugs, therefore, we buy them. hypothetically speaking, if all the countries you mentioned DID begin to produce in mass such drugs, where do you expect all of them to go? geez man, there only a certain amount of drugs a human can take, and you really think 6 nations pumping out so many drugs is going to flourish them economically??? WRONG. the market is based on demand. if there are 6 nations (oh and there will be more of course) dishing out drugs left and right, the demand for drugs will drop considerably. so the "economical flourishing" you predict will not be as great as you might think. Never said economic flourishing. I said increasing their GNP, like Colombian Coffee.
i still dont buy it
- increasing their GNP
- eliminating the hazoroudous & dangerous drug traffickers
- reducing the amount of corrupt government officials that are in the pocket of drug traffickers
- increasing fair trade and globalization
- the ability of the US government to influence these other governments with a pro western type of democracy and capitalism.
I know what some of you more conservative people are thinking:
- the addiction rates would rise, particularly since some of these are more addictive
- more young people will try harder drugs.
- more drivers under the influence of an illegal hard drug.
These concerns are valid but yet to be proven. You are correct, this statement should of been applied to all theories. But the point would be to test them.
thank you. yes testing them would be a nice effect. we already have the example of amsterdam, i think there's all the proof we need.
funny considering the fact you just stated these hypothetical statements:
- increasing their GNP
- eliminating the hazoroudous & dangerous drug traffickers
- reducing the amount of corrupt government officials that are in the pocket of drug traffickers
- increasing fair trade and globalization
- the ability of the US government to influence these other governments with a pro western type of democracy and capitalism.
you cant prove any of these theories will actually become a reality either, so dont shoot down your own argument.
Might I add that these were the same arguments posed against the US government when prohibition was in place. Furthermore: what makes you think that there aren't people right now driving under the influence of some "illegal narcotic" or experimenting with harder drugs in junior high?
obviously there will be cases, that's inevitable. but to basically approve of drugs as a whole would be a great drop in moral for our nation. So currently, our moral is good because we are still the number 1 consumer of illegal drugs and we are winning this war on drugs? the money we have will forever make us the number one target for everything, as long as we are the richest country in the world. whether it be entertainment, foods, drugs, or sex. so you cannot really base your argument on just the US being a target. why dont we concentrate on legalizing prostitution instead? Why don't we? you want to campaign with me?
We are not winning the war on drugs. We are throwing BILLIONS of dollars down the tubes annually and still the US is the number 1 consumer of cocaine, heroin, and marijuna.
your opinion, mines is that it's effective. i think its pretty funny that we're putting up money for the nation's youth to learn the effects of drugs. what if we didnt? you know the amount of garbage that people would talk? People talk regardless. You can't appease everyone. Nations talked against Bush and we are in Iraq. If the US wants to do something globally, it will do it. Domestically speaking, people still talk, it's a free society so of course, expect to hear a mouthful. Economics is the way to make sense of this debate.
you are right gamma. people will never be satisfied. it's part of the american culture. but i still feel it's better to prevent than to lament. so at least the US is TRYING.
If you worry about overcrowded prisons, violence on our streets, violence in Tijuana or Bogota where drug traffickers will blatantly assasinate people who are anti-drug and regularly get away with it, then perhaps a different approach is needed altogether? The current way IS NOT WORKING, and it never will be.
Legalize the drugs, TAX the drugs heavily, use profits
Italy taps porn industry to help curb deficit
Quanto sfavorevole! atza some spicy meatballs 
